performance-budget

Use when reviewing CI configuration, bundle analysis workflows, or pull requests that add dependencies and assets. Distinguish bundle-size budgets from runtime budgets such as Lighthouse or Core Web Vitals so teams can enforce both.

Quality

66%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/performance-budget/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

63%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

A lean, well-structured overview with excellent progressive disclosure into a real, detailed reference file. The weaknesses are a motivational intro paragraph and duplicated bullets that could be trimmed, and a Fix section that delegates all executable detail to the reference without even a minimal inline command. The Check/Fix/Explain workflow is clear but lacks a verification step.

Suggestions

Trim or remove the opening motivational paragraph and the overlapping Quick Reference bullets; the 'why' of performance budgets is background Claude already has.

Inline one minimal executable step in the Fix section (e.g., the `pnpm add -D size-limit @size-limit/preset-app` command or a single size-limit config entry) so the body is actionable without opening the reference.

Add a verify step to the workflow, such as 'Run `size-limit` locally to confirm budgets pass before pushing the CI change.'

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The opening paragraph ('Without automated enforcement, performance degrades gradually — each PR adds a small library... within months the app that loaded in 2 seconds now takes 5') is motivational rationale Claude already knows, and the Quick Reference bullets partially duplicate the Check/Fix/Explain sections. The rest is efficient, so this is mostly tight with some removable padding rather than clearly verbose.	3 / 5
Actionability	The body names concrete tools and targets ('size-limit', 'Lighthouse CI assertions', 'package.json', 'CI workflows') but contains no commands or configuration — the Fix section is a high-level hint, with all executable detail delegated to references/rule.md. Not 4 because inline guidance lacks any runnable command or config snippet; not 2 because tool names and inspection targets are specific.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sequence is coherent, with concrete inspection targets (package.json, CI configuration, bundle-size config, production RUM). A minor validation gap keeps it below 5: no step verifies the fix, e.g. running size-limit locally or confirming CI fails on an exceeded budget.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Scored against the actual bundle: the body is a concise overview with a single, clearly signaled, one-level-deep pointer ('For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see references/rule.md'), and references/rule.md exists and contains exactly that implementation detail. Content is appropriately split with easy navigation.	5 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Description

70%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A solid description with an explicit, natural 'Use when' clause and a well-defined niche. Its main weakness is that the capability statement covers only one distinguishing action, leaving enforcement and setup actions implicit. It is written in third person with no fluff.

Suggestions

Add one or two concrete enforcement actions to the capability statement, e.g. 'Configure size-limit and Lighthouse CI assertions so builds fail when budgets are exceeded.'

Include common trigger variations such as 'performance regression' or 'bundle size check' alongside the existing Lighthouse/Core Web Vitals terms.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain and about two concrete actions ('Distinguish bundle-size budgets from runtime budgets such as Lighthouse or Core Web Vitals so teams can enforce both', 'reviewing CI configuration... or pull requests that add dependencies and assets') but omits setup/enforcement actions like configuring size-limit or failing CI builds, so coverage is not comprehensive as anchor 4 requires.	3 / 5
Completeness	The 'when' is explicit ('Use when reviewing CI configuration, bundle analysis workflows, or pull requests that add dependencies and assets') and the 'what' is present but thin — a single distinguishing/enforcing capability rather than the multiple concrete actions the anchor-5 example demonstrates. Not 3 because both what and when are clearly stated.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Natural trigger terms are present ('CI configuration', 'pull requests', 'dependencies and assets', 'Lighthouse', 'Core Web Vitals'), matching phrases a user would actually say. A few common variations are missing (e.g., 'performance regression', 'bundle size check'), so it stops short of comprehensive coverage.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The performance-budget-in-CI niche is well defined with distinct triggers (bundle analysis workflows, PRs adding dependencies, Lighthouse/Core Web Vitals budgets). Minor overlap risk with a generic CI-review or general performance skill keeps it below 5.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
metadata_version	'metadata.version' is missing	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: thedaviddias/Front-End-Checklist
Path: skills/performance-budget/SKILL.md
Commit: 7bfd868

Reviewed: 1 day ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.